J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Again, I thank my friend from Wisconsin who is a master of process. However, there is a larger question. Mr. Speaker, I extended to the gentleman the courtesy of not interrupting his speech, and I would appreciate the chance to respond, and then if my friend from Georgia chooses to yield the gentleman time, he can do so accordingly. Mr. Speaker, the American people want to know, can we come to an agreement. I think there are many different alternatives there, many different ways to get there. But I would hope that in the immediate days ahead, the President will return from the campaign trail, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader, will return from the campaign trail, and that working together, we can find a way to put people before politics. I have a great deal of respect for my friends on the other side of the aisle. There is not total agreement, but then again, that is the virtue, even with the challenge of serving in this institution; and I hope that we can put people before politics and people before process.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Georgia will yield, because that is something very different. The President of the United States came out and said that it was the special interests who stopped this, not a legitimate question of policy. I am glad my friend from Wisconsin brought up the fact, and we affirm tonight, that there was a legitimate difference in terms of protecting small business people, and employers, and claiming that somehow people are captive of the special interests. I yield back to my friend from Georgia.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, there is another important point. I appreciate my friend from Texas and his version of events, and I understand how he perceives this, but if I am not mistaken, the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means offered that, and we can go back and check the vote, but I believe it was unanimous.

Mr. HAYWORTH. There actually is joint jurisdiction.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, again, I thank my friend from Texas for bringing up a point and for his unending advocacy of the position of the Blue Dog Democrats. We look forward to working at a conservative governing coalition with my friend, provided that those who decide who comes back to this institution see fit to return to us, and we look forward to that. Yes, I think it begs a larger question of budget reform; but it still does not change the dynamic, which is even if we were to agree on a number, is there any guarantee that our President would likewise agree? And therein lies the problem: a continual moving target.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, what was the issue?

Mr. HAYWORTH. I stand corrected. Well, then, the Commerce section of the jurisdiction was cosponsored in bipartisan fashion by the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Luther), and there was bipartisan consensus bringing that out and bringing it to the floor. Now, good people can disagree. My vantage point is, also representing rural hospitals, I took a look at that $31 billion package, realizing that the bulk of the funding goes to the hospitals; some $11 billion, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, that is not hay, that is real money, going to help people. My friend has a different point of view, but I do not see how we can turn our backs on that.

Mr. HAYWORTH. No, we do not.

Mr. HAYWORTH. That is the point I made to my friend from Wisconsin, who for a time chaired the Committee on Appropriations. The fact is, the problem is, the promise was made nearly a quarter century ago. My friend from Wisconsin raises what should be considered a triumph, that after long and hard negotiating an agreement was reached. But the question was begged nearly a quarter century ago. Where was the funding then?

Mr. HAYWORTH. If my friend would yield the time, this is precisely the point.

Mr. HAYWORTH. This is precisely the point. I think my friend misunderstands the historical context because my friend had margins of votes in excess of 100 and could have, during the days when he controlled the purse, could have fully funded IDEA had he chosen to with other Members of the majority party then. That was then. This is now. I think it is profound, Mr. Speaker, that we have moved to fund the program, and I champion the fact that my friend sat down to negotiate.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I think this is indicative of the process. I appreciate the good-faith efforts of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, who has served with distinction for going on 3 decades in this Chamber, but here is the quintessential difference. My friend from Minnesota is asking, what is the bottom line? My friend from Wisconsin wants to revisit a process which he knows full well also entails sitting down and achieving consensus, not only with those at the table, but also with those in the White House who earlier tonight he said could negotiate for the President, in lieu of the President, the same way it works here, where your side has a point of view, our side has a point of view, and we attempt to reach a consensus. So I would again be interested to hear if there was, in fact, a number, rather than a process. What is the number? Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, how much is enough?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Would the gentleman yield? That is exactly the point.

Mr. HAYWORTH. To your knowledge.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would yield to my friend from Minnesota.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would concur. There is no reason to point the finger of blame. I was simply saying to my friend from Texas, we may not be privy to all the discussions. We may not be privy to all the schedules. Indeed as we have seen with some of the other verbal gymnastics that have gone on in preceding days, while we have not had firsthand knowledge, there has been a very curious process that has continued here of, sadly, not the gentleman from Texas, but perhaps others saying one thing while they would do another. It is not an attack on my friend's integrity. We agree on a great deal here.

Mr. HAYWORTH. It begs a larger question. My friend from Wisconsin mentioned special education. Indeed, what we have done here in terms of funding, IDEA, has been to increase by some 100 percent the amounts of funds there. What we have also done under the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, was to fulfill a promise made when my friend was here much earlier. Almost a quarter century ago when I was still in high school, when this Congress went on record saying it would supply 40 percent of the total funding for that program, it took this Congress, the same Congress that balanced the budget, the same Congress that kept its hands out of the Social Security money, the same Congress that kept its hands out of the Medicare cookie jar, it took this Congress to achieve that promise. So I appreciate my friend's point of view from his inside view of the Committee on Appropriations, but I think from time to time we need to step back and take a look at the big picture.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Georgia will continue to yield, first of all, let me note a common bond of agreement, since we both represent border States, the concern about how we deal with the real question of uniting families but at the same time not rewarding those who intentionally break the law. I think we have a consensus there. So let me build from there. Because, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to show the American people that there can be some common agreement. Mr. Speaker, I do this not to be flippant, but perhaps my friend from Texas is more aware of the President's schedule. Can he tell me, was the President of the United States available for meetings past 1:20 a.m. Monday?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for reading that into the Record. I think it points out that the mantra that was heard heretofore, indeed the mantra that some of our friends on the left came back with tonight of a ``do nothing Congress,'' even our own President, who happens to be a member of the other party, said that this has been one of the most productive sessions. I think that is something upon which we ought to agree. Certainly we moved in a bipartisan fashion with a prescription drug benefit for our seniors. We moved, as I mentioned earlier, to end the unfair, in essence, tax on Social Security in terms of an earnings limit for those seniors who continue to choose to work past the age of retirement. We have moved in many different areas in terms of educational flexibility, a bill that was backed by every one of the 50 Governors in our United States regardless of whether they are Democrat, Republicans, or Independents. So we have had consensus, compromise and progress. And it is unfortunate that at this time, at this juncture, when agreement can be so close, and perhaps it is inevitable it is a function of the calendar, that there are those who are tempted either to play a game of gotcha or one-upmanship to say we want to work but instead turn home to campaign. The President, who we hoped was here to finally work this out, chose to go overfly my State and go to California again to campaign. We respect the fact that people want to get the issues to the folks, but it seems to me they are putting the cart before the horse. Our most important job is to be true to the oath of office that we have taken to be here doing our work regardless of the date on the calendar.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I appreciate the efforts of my friends on the left and certainly the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations to offer his perspective tonight. Certainly he has been involved in a variety of talks dealing with spending and certainly offers his own testimony to his point of view and political philosophy time and again on this floor. We welcome that because it is legitimate to have differences. The point I would make, and this goes back to our early days in the House. I remember one night when the President and First Lady very graciously welcomed new Members of Congress to the White House for a meeting. As you might expect, Mr. Speaker, and maybe my colleagues remember in their early days of Congress when they had a chance to go to the White House, it is a fairly important occasion. I remember that night, the First Lady started the meeting and the President joined us later because he had to break away from personal negotiations to try and end the baseball strike. Mr. Speaker, we know baseball is our national pastime; indeed, my friend from Wisconsin and I have discussed baseball time and again, but that is a leisure pursuit. We can talk about the business of sports and how important that may be; but, Mr. Speaker, I think what we are saying tonight is if it was important enough for the President of the United States to insert himself into a negotiation about the baseball strike, if it is important enough for the President of the United States to attempt to take a leadership role in negotiations in the Middle East, if it is important enough for the President of the United States to make a phone call between two domestic partners dealing with the status of their relationship, certainly, Mr. Speaker, it is important enough for the President of the United States to return to Washington and come join us personally to try to achieve an agreement.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, as we are joined by our friends on the left, and we welcome them in the spirit of consensus and compromise, I just thought about a comment our own President made in a press conference a few days ago when he said that this bipartisan Congress has accomplished so much. And I think about stopping the tax on earnings limits, what in essence was an unfair tax on senior citizens. For the record, the gentleman could you put that statement in our Congressional Record.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding. As he mentioned his beloved spouse, Ms. Libby, my thoughts turn to home and Ms. Mary and a conversation that my bride, Mary, and I had just last night. This is a great honor to serve in the Congress of the United States. Evoking the memories of one who served at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue before coming here, John Quincy Adams, he was heard to say, ``There is no greater honor than serving in the people's house.'' And so, Mr. Speaker, I think back to my conversation last night with Mary when she said, honey, we would love to have you at home. The kids have spelling tests. There is a lot going on. But you and the other Members of Congress need to stay there and complete the work you were sent to do. And as is often the case, Mary provides good advice, the kind of common sense that comes from Main Street, America, that may be disrupted in the Beltway and with the pundits and with the dominant media culture always ready to play a game of gotcha, especially now, Mr. Speaker, when we look at the calendar and see what approaches. Fast approaching is the first Tuesday following the first Monday, election day, where our constituents, where citizens across America will make a choice. Conventional wisdom, our friends in the fourth estate, indeed our friends on the other side of the aisle, albeit sotto voce, from the other side of the aisle, say, we need to be at home. But the fact is we are here and here we will remain to put people before politics, to complete our work, to understand there are legitimate differences between people of the two major parties and those independents who join us here. Mr. Speaker, I also think, in a sense, being entrusted with this role is not unlike applying for a job. And I have yet to take a job application and find a place to fill out partisan identification. I never see a spot on the resume or on a job application which asks whether you are a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent. So putting partisanship aside, I think it is important for every Member who can possibly be here to return to this Chamber. And that is why I noted with great dismay tonight, as we cast the vote to make sure our Government was funded for another day, our friend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), who happens to be the leader of the Democratic party in this Chamber, chose to be out campaigning in Missouri. Mr. Speaker, how sad it is also that the President of the United States, who a week ago informed the Senate majority leader that due to a fund-raiser in New York, he would be unavailable for consultation until after 1 o'clock in the morning, followed the next day by a round of golf and going in person to the final game of the World Series, he would be unavailable for consultation, now that same President of the United States finds himself not in the resplendent White House but instead 3,000 miles to the west in California out campaigning. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, let us make this very clear. The President of the United States is not our campaigner in chief, he is the commander in chief. He is the Chief Executive. And we should expect nothing less of our President than his presence here in Washington to achieve a hard-won consensus and compromise.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, we returned tonight once again to do the business of the people in an effort, even at this late date, to put people before politics. How sad it was to note in the rollcall vote that just preceded that our colleague from Missouri, the minority leader, the Democratic leader of this House, was absent. I hope there is no personal concern that took him home. In fact, we understand that he may be home campaigning in stark contrast to his public comments. Mr. Speaker, tonight this is the situation that confronts us. Most of us are here working in Washington, D.C., working. But I would show you the Midwest, the great State of Missouri. Our friend, the Democratic leader, who said it was so important to stay here and do our work, it appears he is home campaigning, Mr. Speaker; and our friend, the President of the United States, is campaigning in California. Curiouser and curiouser the conduct of those in whom the public trust is placed.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I think my friend from Pennsylvania for yielding. Mr. Speaker, tonight we gather here because still we must do the people's business. Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the fact that there are those who look at the calendar and the pending national elections and seem to think that everything must inevitably be colored with the hue of partisan politics. Mr. Speaker, it should be our goal, no matter our partisan labels, whether Republicans or Democrats or Independents, to put people before politics. It is in that spirit that I rise this evening with my colleagues, because what has been discovered is so disturbing that it transcends traditional party politics. We are not talking about typical disagreements or differences in philosophy. To amplify the words of our majority whip, the gentleman from Texas, in his remarks, Vice President Gore, while a member of the United States Senate, worked closely with my Senator from Arizona, John McCain, and a bill was passed, written by those two gentlemen, that became law that dealt with weapons sales by the Russian republic to the nation of Iran. It was an effort on the part of our government to issue sanctions to try and prevent the sale of those weapons of mass destruction, because of their destabilizing, in effect, Mr. Speaker, because they represent a clear and present danger to allies of the United States and indeed the United States itself. My friend from Pennsylvania mentioned the State of Israel, still in the news, still involved in conflict and uncertainty, and the tragedy of the situation, as revealed in the documents now entered into the Record, and I thank my friend from Pennsylvania because the State Department has been reticent in even allowing copies of those documents to be in the possession of the proper committees of this House, even though that has happened. What the documents reveal should shock every American. The Vice President of the United States, one of the architects along with Senator McCain, of a policy that would impose sanctions on Russia if weapons of mass destruction continue to be sold, worked out an agreement in private with the Russian leader, Viktor Chernomyrdin, excusing the Russians from continued sale of those weapons to Iran; in fact, inviting those sales to continue. Mr. Speaker, stop and imagine the implication of what is part of the Record. Understand these were not six disabled tow missiles. We are talking about an arsenal that included three Kilo Class submarines, the best technology heretofore developed for conventionally powered submarines for silence and stealth and secrecy as those submarines patrol the oceans and seas of the world; an incredible advantage for a nation which sadly remains on the outside looking in, in essence an outlaw nation. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we will remember at the outset of this Congress, and I violate no confidences, I violate no classified documents, a bipartisan committee, including a former Member of this House who later became Secretary of Defense, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rumsfeld chairing the Commission, along with the first director of the CIA under President Clinton, Mr. Woolsey, came to this House and talked about the growing proliferation of weapons of mass technology by outlaw nations, including Iran, Iraq, North Korea, where trouble continues; and our Secretary of State just returned from a visit. We are talking about a situation that goes directly to the heart of our future, perhaps to the survival of our friends, and ultimately to the type of national security we can provide from those who would aspire to become Commander in Chief. The whip was quite right, Mr. Speaker. Our colleagues in the fourth estate, the journalists, aside from a front page article 3 weeks ago in The New York Times, followed up with work in The Washington Times and other periodical publications such as Insight on the News, aside from those publications, Mr. Speaker, the silence of the television networks in this Nation has been deafening. Madam Speaker, who will tell the people? Who will tell the people of this breach of faith? It falls to this House, to this people's house, and the grand design of our founders in this constitutional republic with separate and coequal branches of government. Madam Speaker, to stand and tell the people something is seriously wrong, the State Department should turn over every document related to this; and the Vice President of the United States, Madam Speaker, should stand before the people he hopes to lead not with excuses, not with fables, not with stories, but with the truth. At last, Madam Speaker, at long last, is not the truth what the American people deserve?

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), who in the well of the House outlined many of the same arguments that he outlined last night when we gathered here in informal session to have an honest discussion on some differences. One thing that I think is interesting is this: when the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) put the question to the gentleman from Texas, if we reverted to the President's original budget numbers, if that were the key to accommodate the President as my friend points out, that certainly the President has a role in this process, if we were to revert to the President's original estimates, could there be a guarantee that the President would sign the appropriations bills? The gentleman from Texas was very candid last night. He said he could not guarantee that, and he respectfully submitted that that was not the question. But, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the question, because that is the argument my friend from Texas has made. We do not seek to ignore the President or deal with some sort of blatant hostility. We understand consensus and compromise and we have done that. And even as the gentleman outlined the challenge confronting us with Medicare, I would remind all of my colleagues that just last week on this floor we passed a piece of legislation vital for health care with the bulk of the help going to hospitals, especially rural hospitals, to local health care, to nursing homes. The fact is some chose not to vote for it. Now, good people can disagree. We are here in this situation, as we try to find consensus and compromise, and the question again, Mr. Speaker, is this: How much is enough? I understand the calendar. I do not presume to be naive. I know this is the political season. But I would join with the gentleman from Texas who says let us not engage in fingerpointing. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the challenge before us is to put people before politics, and that is what I suggest we do.